J

This book is 45 years old at this point, but it ages well. If you could ignore the handful of references to computers and floppy disks of the era, you could believe it was written relatively recently. We have, of course, learned since it was initially written, and the 30th anniversary edition I read did include some helpful interjections in addition to the extra chapters added to the second edition in 1989.

The Selfish Gene is and continues to be wildly popular for a reason. It provides an extremely accessible explanation of the mechanism of evolution, popularizing the concept that the gene is the fundamental building block that the whole process revolves around. What's a gene? The definition he uses is approximately “any sequence of any length of DNA”, with the understanding that shorter sequences are more likely to survive longer unaltered than longer sequences, but allows him to ignore quibbling over terminology of specific lengths when it's largely not meaningful to the concepts being presented.

The core idea is that genes that are successful are genes that increase the number of copies of themselves in existence. It explains the concept that there is a mechanism for even extreme “altruism”, such as an organism sacrificing itself for others to be selected for, if you recognize that multiple close kin relations each have many of their genes in common with that individual, and that dying saving several siblings increases the number of copies of your genes propagated to future generations than failing to do so.

It goes further into many other elements of how to view evolution from the perspective of individual genes, in specific environments, and how natural selection does and doesn't work to change species over time.

One thing I'm not sure I was aware of, going into this reading of the book, is that Dawkins also coined the term “meme” and gave the first(?) presentation of ideas as replicators subject to very similar selection pressures as genes. This explanation is relatively simple and there are entire books on the concept now, but I did enjoy his short treatment here.

This is the Bias Bible. If you want to get a brief overview of how your brain works, and lots of information on how you aren't the rational actor you see yourself as, this is the book.Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on human judgement covered in this book, and played a key role in the development of the field of behavioral economics. If you read one book on the brain, this is the one.

(If this is overwhelming and you want an accurate, but less in depth alternative, I also highly recommend Thinking in Bets by Annie Duke.)

This is the story of precision engineering from precisions of .1 to 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 01, or early cannons and steam engines through guns and automobiles, modern jet airplanes, then ultimately to modern microprocessors and the tools scientists are using to investigate the universe at infinite and infinitesimal scales.

I don't think this book is perfect, but it's pretty well written and provides a cohesive narrative of how we, as humans, have sought and achieved more and more ridiculous levels of replicable precision and how even small imperfections can cause catastrophic damage with the tolerance high performance products are designed for. It's not at the top of my list, but it's a pretty good read and you'll learn a little.

“Still, nothing is as wildly age-inappropriate as a toy that Tesco, the UK retailer, released in 2006: the Peekaboo Pole Dancing Kit, a pole-dancing play set marketed to females under ten—as something that will help them “unleash the sex kitten inside.”

This is the most disturbing example of marketing gone to a gross extreme in this book, but it's far from the only one. Lindstrom tells the story of how marketing takes advantage of understanding the brain to push your buttons and sell products. He starts with research indicating that you can start to form brand attachments by babies in utero and continues with efforts grooming kids into perfect little customers, and influencers of parent purchases, before getting into how they target adults.

Then, while this book is about a decade old at this point, he starts to discuss all the ways big companies are tracking you with technology. Many more people are aware of some of the ways big data is used for advertising now, but it's likely you'll learn things about how deep those tentacles go reading this book as well, even though it's starting to slow its age a little.


Finally, he discusses an experiment where he set up a family in a new neighborhood to test the efficacy of guerrilla word of mouth marketing to friends and neighbors. This also serves to demonstrate why astroturfing is such big business in the tech driven world of today.

As it's partly driven by his personal involvement in the industry, not every claim is sourced to academic research, but a decent bit is. For additional science backed information on the subject, Influence or Presuasion by Robert Cialdini are the way to go, but Lindstrom's insider perspective is worth reading as well.

Very good book. You'll find it disturbing, but knowing is the only way to protect yourself from manipulation.

The core premise here is that innovation often comes from applying old ideas in new ways. Whether tools are physical or mental, having a variety of tools in your toolkit allows you to approach problems more different ways. Epstein uses historical examples of groundbreaking ideas born from familiar concepts in one field being transferred to another to solve a big problem, examples where hyper-focused ideologies led to disaster, and various pieces of scientific evidence to support the premise that, while we need subject matter experts, we also need well rounded thinkers who can think abstractly about problems and apply old ideas in new ways.

While he critiques the 10,000 hour rule popularized by Malcolm Gladwell, I feel the presentation of the research behind it is caught in the crossfire. Gladwell's presentation is a problem, but at times the way he presents critiques of that presentation are overly critical of the research. He could have acknowledged that in Peak, Ericsson isn't advocating putting your kid in a room with a violin 20 hours a day. He addresses that highly specialized skills don't transfer unless they can be integrated into your existing mental models. He emphasizes that a core element of deliberate practice is being able to maintain a high level of focus throughout, and that repetition without the focus isn't going to be that helpful. He doesn't advocate anything like just abandoning everything else to train one skill.


Ultimately I don't think they're that far apart. They're both selling the message that you can improve at things you want to improve at, and that it's never too late to start learning. It did sour me a little to see how he presented Anders work, but I think both works can be used to inform your efforts at self improvement. I highly encourage both.